“The Creation of Adam,” painted by Michaelangelo, depicts God among the angels of heaven. Image by Urek Meniashvili.
St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) set themselves the task of proving that God exists. Both came up with some ingenious theories.
St Anselm started what later became described as the “ontological argument,” which St Thomas Aquinas then took up and developed.
According to Iris Murdoch in Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, Aquinas did not accept St Anselm’s Proof. However, St Anselm’s concept of God does seem to resonate with Aquinas’ Fourth Proof, the idea that perfection in the imagination must exist in reality.
Saint Anselm – “Faith Seeking for Understanding”
St Anselm, a Burgundian, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. He battled through several theories, then set to defining his conclusions in his Proslogian. Anselm claims that God must exist, because the concept of God exists. The idea of God is synonymous with that of a supreme being, Anselm believes. Nothing greater than the Supreme Being can exist in the imagination, so it must follow that it must exist in reality.
In Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, Iris Murdoch describes Anselm’s acceptance of the “…invisible in the visible, the uncreated in the created, the great Good in the lesser good.” Murdoch also speaks of the need for certainty, which she describes as a “dangerous concept.” She says, “Certainty: clarity. In Anselm’s spiritual life these ideas are intimately connected.”
________________
Would you like to see more articles like this?
Support This Expert’s Articles, This Category of Articles, or the Site in General Here.
Just put your preference in the “I Would Like to Support” Box after you Click to Donate Below:
Dante and Beatrice gaze upon the highest heaven in Paradiso Canto. Painting by Gustave Doré.
Arguments Against Anselm’s Proof
In his own time, St Anselm had his critics. In “St. Anselm of Canterbury,” Philosophy – 100 Great Thinkers, Jeremy Harwood quotes Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who says that Anselm’s reasoning allows for many supposedly perfect things that could not possibly exist.
“Anselm’s reply was that it was a mistake to apply his reasoning to argue for the existence of anything other than God,” says Harwood.
Murdoch applies a modern, more psychological approach: “Anselm’s Proof has interested thinkers because it seem so concise and “logical”. But neither its Christian nor its logical charm must be allowed to conceal its fundamental sense. The idea of God, (goodness, virtue) crystallises out of our moral activity.”
St Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs
In order to “Christianise” Greek thinking and render it harmless to Christian dogma, St Thomas Aquinas came up with the following Five Proofs, which he published in his Summa Theologica, (Summary of Theology). Bertrand Russell summarized these in History of Western Philosophy.
- From Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas takes the idea of the unmoved mover. “There are things which are only moved, and other things which both move and are moved. Whatever is moved is moved by something, and, since an endless regress is impossible, we must arrive somewhere at something which moved other things without being moved.”
- Now we come to the argument of the First Cause, “…which again depends upon the impossibility of an infinite regress,” explains Russell.
- St Thomas Aquinas’s third argument is similar to the first: “There must be an ultimate source of all necessity.”
- This is the argument involving “perfection.” There are various perfections in the world, which must have a completely perfect source.
- St Thomas Aquinas claims that all things, even lifeless things, serve a purpose. That divine purpose must come from some being outside of these things, whether animate or inanimate.
In short, St Thomas Aquinas believes that all rational knowledge can only be gained through sensory experience. Studying the world shows us the essential nature of things. We must strive for our highest good, believe in Christ as our salvation and as our protection in Heaven and on Earth.
Thomism: A Philosophical Theory to Prove the Existence of God
St Thomas Aquinas’s theory became known as Thomism. Thomism’s attempts to reconcile Aristotelian thinking with Christianity depends on upholding the distinctions between blind faith and reason, therefore, between science and philosophy.
Hi, Jonathan Speke Laudly here, If subjectivity exsits, is an actuality, then it is objectively so.If the determination of objectivity (of objective knowledge)is made by individuals or groups then it is made subjectively or intersubjectively. One may argue that subjectivity and objectivity are two different points of view. One may also argue that they are really the same thing: extreme objectivity is also extreme subjectivity because if the content of experience is assumed to be observed subjectively then even the notion of a self which observes subjectively is content presented to the subjective observer. In other words, the subjective observing self is an objective fact. You will find no clean dividing line between subjective and objective.This distinction is just another version of the mind-body problem, and it is a problem because subjective and objective are considered entities mutually exclusive.
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn’t argue with that, and your reasoning makes sense, but I think if we did not try to define terms, at least for practical purposes, we would find it hard to discuss many important issues in any meaningful way.
So many levels of understanding and of meaning,
Janet
Aquinas’ fourth proof is based on participation, by which he means that what he think to some degree participates in reality outside our thoughts. It is a weak proof,one in which he seems to revert to a Platonic mode of thought, and it has never been widely taken up by western thinkers. I wonder whether he is obliquely referring to the sense of God in religious/mystical experience, and if so this proof would make more sense.
I just wanted to add that according to some quantum theorists, this does not preclude the existence of God, as we have created Him out of our consciousness. Or, maybe, we are part of His consciousness.
I wouldn’t like to comment on that although it’s exciting to speculate. Please don’t shoot the messenger!
Please note, the reply below this one was meant to appear after my original attempt at an explanation, but it preceded it.
It won’t make sense unless read in the correct order.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your comment. You say the fourth proof is a weak one because it implies that what Aquinas thinks “participates in reality outside our thoughts.” This is not a new idea. Some philosophers (and physicists) believe that we create our universe out of our own consciousness. Edmund Husserl pioneered “phenomenology,” which says that reality consists of objects and events as perceived in human consciousness, and, importantly, these objects and event do not exist independently of human consciousness. It blows your mind for sure, but I would add that quantum theory seems to back up these claims.
So maybe St. Thomas Aquinas was correct albeit – possibly – for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I think we don’t give those ancient philosophers their due.
Did you know Democritus originated the theory that the universe is made up of indivisible atoms that are constantly moving? Not that this is really anything to to do with this article, except perhaps, to show that the ancient world was not devoid of genuinely inspirational thinking. I am sure Democritus’ theory would have appeared outrageous to many of his contemporaries, just as the theories arising from quantum theory perplex and divide opinion today.
Religion is mostly composed of beliefs. Thus beliefs become the focal point and truth becomes a mere peripheral. Because of this, truth concerning the true existence of God, is given little value at all by the religious folk, for “truth” is seen as a major component of science rather than it be seen as the all of religion. Thus truth is rejected by religious believers in an instant. Again I say, this rejection is applied even to any true proof of the existence of God himself.
For instance, lets say that you searched the bible for hidden information, perhaps searching for God’s signature, and you actually found it, it is to be noted that there isn’t one religious person on the entire planet who will not laugh at it, mock it, and spit into its face.
If, in a hidden format, the Bible stated that “The Father is God” and “The Lord is Christ”, and that this was just the beginning of a long chain of similar hidden signature info, would that capture anyone’s attention ?
The answer up to this date, is no. On the grand religious scale, “Truth” is dead. Belief takes its place when dealing with such an absolute, the grand scale of reality itself.
Hi Sean,
I can see what you are saying. I would agree with you, that religion is about belief. We can only search for what feels right for us. I would be the last person to want to convert anybody from what makes their life bearable and meaningful, whether I agree with them or not. However, as an aspiring philosopher, I could never take the view that because I believe something, it must be true. Things are what they are, whether I believe in them or not. Remember the “black swan.”? Once people believed all swans were white, because they had only ever seen white swans. Then, eureka! black swans. I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow – but then, wasn’t it Hume who said we couldn’t be certain about anything?
Janet
There is a difference between what seems right to me and what seems right for me. We all must work on our own judgments, so we must all decide what is the truth as we see it. However, what seems right for me can turn religion into personal preferences, and we make ourselves the benchmark for truth. Ultimately, we have to try to find God and ascertain his/her [it doesn’t matter] will. Only then can we avoid the pit of creating a religion to suit ourselves.
Do beliefs become central at the expense of truth. Sadly yes, but not necessarily so and not in all cases. One t who reflects on truth and thinks seriously about belief will not fall into this trap.
You echo my own instincts, Frank. It’s good to debate, but I don’t want to tell anyone else what to think. Nor do I accept anyone else should try to overpower me with their own beliefs, something that happened as a matter of course in my childhood – not just to me but to everyone of my generation. The trouble is that sometimes people think it is their religious duty to convert others, Give me the facts, as you see them, but let me make up my own mind.
It is great to hear from you again, it seems long time since we were on suite.101. I dislike it when people try to convert me, and I dislike it even more when they say that they are not trying to do so. At this point I ask why they are speaking to me then. I also dislike people who think that they are entitled to tell others what to think. Religion should be a process of personal growth undertaken in peace, freedom, non-violence and civilised dialogue. Whatever happens, people need space and time to make up their own minds. You will note that the previous pope, Benedict, opposed proselytizing. He thought that the way forward was by witness, simply living a good life that people might want to follow.
Interesting using B. Russell representation of Aquinas . Russell rejected completely the basic tenets embraced by the man whose thoughts were cogently presented in several volumes .
Quantum implications could also be derived from his infinity presentation but of course wouldn’t have been his purpose when he wrote of it.
Mark,
We are fortunate in being able to see the bigger picture by making connections that would not have been available to philosophers in the distant past. Isn’t it amazing how frequently those old philosophers are proved to be on the right track?